Chinese Discussion Thread

[[Armag] diarouga]

Well honestly the issue is that the map team has been working against the balance team since the begining of the EP, sadly.
At first it was garja, who's known to have unpopular opinions, who was against the EP policy, and against high hunt TP maps, who decided to make weird maps in order to break the EP balance, and have more «fun» games.
And since he thinks he knows better than others he didn't care.

Then came riki, who thought too that the EP was standardizing the game, and who wanted more agressive games, and thus decided to make more agressive maps.
That's why there are so many no tp, low hunts, or weird maps in the tourney pool, because the tourney staff wants to include every map in the tourney.

Now whether the EP is indeed standardizing the game or not (which I don't think it is), is not the question.
The real issue is that the map team and the balance team are working against each other, which is no good for the EP balance, and sucks in tourneys.

[yemshi]

Sounds more like you are salty :O

[enjoy2play]

Show hidden quotes

i dunno why musk huss would be unbeatable as china can deal with ashi nagi as well. the combo isnt the issue, its that once china is out of shipments, theyre not gonna match brit respam. so if they dont win the 13m fight. they wont be able to hold the reinforcements that come after. and for that it doesnt matter so much what brits makes tbh. musk huss or lb goon huss, the end result is the same.

Well true it's mostly because they can't match the brit mass
Still flaming arrows are a lot weaker than falcs

maybe thats why they cost -20%, not sure

Yes but you only have 2 arrows in the shipment, so since you're not going to build a castle and train them, their cost is irrelevant.
Still, dps wise, they're more than 20% weaker vs infantry.

lol you cant say a unit is bad because shipments arent balanced
or are hussars bad because they lose 3huss shipment vs 5coss shipment?

[Garja]

Well honestly the issue is that the map team has been working against the balance team since the begining of the EP, sadly.
At first it was garja, who's known to have unpopular opinions, who was against the EP policy, and against high hunt TP maps, who decided to make weird maps in order to break the EP balance, and have more «fun» games.
And since he thinks he knows better than others he didn't care.

Then came riki, who thought too that the EP was standardizing the game, and who wanted more agressive games, and thus decided to make more agressive maps.
That's why there are so many no tp, low hunts, or weird maps in the tourney pool, because the tourney staff wants to include every map in the tourney.

Now whether the EP is indeed standardizing the game or not (which I don't think it is), is not the question.
The real issue is that the map team and the balance team are working against each other, which is no good for the EP balance, and sucks in tourneys.

First of all you're impersonating the balance team because aside from you and maybe Zoi and GS I didn't see anyone complaining about no TP maps. In that sense there is no opposition between any team really.
Second,when it comes to the argument from you supporting the choice of standardizing the pool on TP maps only, that shows very clearly how ignorant you are about game design and how narrow minded your concept of balance is.

[[Armag] diarouga]

Show hidden quotes

i dunno why musk huss would be unbeatable as china can deal with ashi nagi as well. the combo isnt the issue, its that once china is out of shipments, theyre not gonna match brit respam. so if they dont win the 13m fight. they wont be able to hold the reinforcements that come after. and for that it doesnt matter so much what brits makes tbh. musk huss or lb goon huss, the end result is the same.

Well true it's mostly because they can't match the brit mass
Still flaming arrows are a lot weaker than falcs

maybe thats why they cost -20%, not sure

Yes but you only have 2 arrows in the shipment, so since you're not going to build a castle and train them, their cost is irrelevant.
Still, dps wise, they're more than 20% weaker vs infantry.

lol you cant say a unit is bad because shipments arent balanced
or are hussars bad because they lose 3huss shipment vs 5coss shipment?

Well, my bad, I didn't mean that flaming arrows suck in every situation.

They're indeed cheaper than falcs, and have a better range so they can work like culvs.
However I was arguing about Japan vs China, a specific situation where what you want is basically dps vs infantry, and where you don't have the time to build a castle and to make them.

Here, the extra range is totally useless, and the arrows cost effectively aren't nearly as good as falcs vs infantry, and the shipment only gives you 2.
So while vs France they might be good because they deal with the falcs, vs China, they suck compared to falcs.

[[Armag] diarouga]

Well honestly the issue is that the map team has been working against the balance team since the begining of the EP, sadly.
At first it was garja, who's known to have unpopular opinions, who was against the EP policy, and against high hunt TP maps, who decided to make weird maps in order to break the EP balance, and have more «fun» games.
And since he thinks he knows better than others he didn't care.

Then came riki, who thought too that the EP was standardizing the game, and who wanted more agressive games, and thus decided to make more agressive maps.
That's why there are so many no tp, low hunts, or weird maps in the tourney pool, because the tourney staff wants to include every map in the tourney.

Now whether the EP is indeed standardizing the game or not (which I don't think it is), is not the question.
The real issue is that the map team and the balance team are working against each other, which is no good for the EP balance, and sucks in tourneys.

First of all you're impersonating the balance team because aside from you and maybe Zoi and GS I didn't see anyone complaining about no TP maps. In that sense there is no opposition between any team really.

You can't really deny that the EP goal is to have a fine balance on standard TP maps. Eventhough some don't like it, it's common knowledge that this is how the EP balance works (and that's why some guys complain that they only see semi ff wars).

Second,when it comes to the argument from you supporting the choice of standardizing the pool on TP maps only, that shows very clearly how ignorant you are about game design and how narrow minded your concept of balance is.
My point wasn't that we should remove all the unstandard maps. I was simply agreeing with Yurashic who claimed that we had way too many low hunt, or no TP maps, which is not the best in a competitive tournament.
I think that the tourney team should put less unstandard maps in tourney map pools, because currently, even with vetos you can't remove them all. Sometimes it's even more than half of the maps.

[deleted_user0]

well then thats why ep is silly. theres no reason why tp maps should be standard anyway. different maps require different meta, but there's no reason why one is more or less competitive than the other.

[gibson]

well then thats why ep is silly. theres no reason why tp maps should be standard anyway. different maps require different meta, but there's no reason why one is more or less competitive than the other.

No high hunt high tp maps are objectively better! zoi told me so

[deleted_user]

?

[yemshi]

[Cometk]

i think tournament mappools should not allow you to completely avoid huge aspects of the game such as water play or dealing with low resource situations. if every tournament game were played on a 5 tp map with 3 safe hunts and no viable water, you would see the exact same metagame play out in every single match. that is not only horrible competitive and design-wise but would kill player and viewer interest in the esoc patch and our community events.

[Goodspeed]

Map diversity is great in tournaments. If you know the map beforehand you can pick your civ based on it.
But the standard, and this is indeed the main focus of our attempts to balance the civs, should remain TP maps with average hunts. If low hunt no-TP maps became the standard, I seem to have missed a memo and need to rethink our entire approach to balancing the civs. Obvious to anyone should be that there is no way to balance this game for both no-TP ánd TP maps, though we do what we can.

The random map pools leave much to be desired imo. I think there should be a "TP maps" pool so that you can actually pick TP civs without autolosing if the map ends up no-TP. Also there should be a "Competitive maps" pool that contains only average hunt TP maps. That these pools are still missing does show bias against this particular style of map in my opinion. A common argument for leaving them out: "Everyone would only play that."

well then thats why ep is silly. theres no reason why tp maps should be standard anyway. different maps require different meta, but there's no reason why one is more or less competitive than the other.

There is a reason. Including TPs adds strategic depth because it's an additional optional investment, and generates XP which increases the amount of shipments you get to send. Shipments are a core feature of this game, and the more you can send the more different options you have. Another reason TPs are great design is that they encourage map control.
I think it's an easy argument to make that games on TP maps are more competitive in the same way chess is more competitive than tic tac toe: there are simply more possibilities.

[deleted_user0]

There is a reason. Including TPs adds strategic depth because it's an additional optional investment, and generates XP which increases the amount of shipments you get to send. Shipments are a core feature of this game, and the more you can send the more different options you have. Another reason TPs are great design is that they encourage map control.
I think it's an easy argument to make that games on TP maps are more competitive in the same way chess is more competitive than tic tac toe: there are simply more possibilities.

It adds depth, but it also adds a balance issue. On top of that, going for a tp is generally not a choice. If it's there, then it's simply too good in 9 out of 10 cases to ignore it. In that sense it doesn't actually add strategic depth, because even though there are more possibilities, the other possibilities aren't as good. Of course, it matters what the map is like. If the tp line is exposed, then yes, in a way it adds strategic depth, but this is mitigated by ATP for a few crucial civs. If there is viable water, then yes, the choice water boom vs tp boom is a valid choice. But on most maps this is not the case. Exactly because going for tp is so much superior over not going tp, is why we need no tp maps. If it was generally a 50/50 choice, we'd see far less tp play on maps where tps are available.

I also think its bs to have a tp map pool... why should tp civs get such preferential treatment that we create a seperate map pool? Are we gonna make a no tp map pool for civs that pretty much auto lose vs good tp civs on tp maps? Are we gonna make a water map pool so water civs don't auto lose on land maps vs tp civs?

A map pool should simply be balanced, that is, every civ excels on a certain map pool, and the maps should be equally available for all civs, in different combinations, so that every civ has about an equal chance to get a map that's favorable to them, unfavorable or neutral.

I fail to see why a map like arkansas is more competitive than cascade range. They cater to the strengths of different civs, but that doesn't really matter. All civs are playable on both maps, they simply require more creativity/adaptation from one civ than the other. Exactly the fact that you are forced to adapt, forced to play to the map as well as the mu is what imo creates a higher level of competition than simply doing the same strat on autopilot no matter which map. Because in that case we can all just play on 1 map, and there is no need to create a different map pool.

[Goodspeed]

It adds depth, but it also adds a balance issue.

Our aim is that civs who are strong on no-TP maps are still competitive on TP maps because they either have the option of booming hard themselves (e.g. Dutch), or have the option to take map control and deny the TP line (e.g. Russia).

On top of that, going for a tp is generally not a choice.

For many civs, but not all, the first TP is a no brainer especially if it's in base (which it isn't always). The second TP and beyond are absolutely a choice.

If it's there, then it's simply too good in 9 out of 10 cases to ignore it.

Taking a TP is not something you can always just do. It requires map control, which requires other sacrifices. So no, it's not better than the other options in 9 out of 10 cases.

Exactly because going for tp is so much superior over not going tp, is why we need no tp maps.

I never said we don't. I'm only arguing that TP maps should be the standard.

I also think its bs to have a tp map pool... why should tp civs get such preferential treatment that we create a seperate map pool?

Because the civs are balanced around it. TP civs shouldn't have a strong advantage against non-TP civs on TP maps. If they do, that's a problem for the balance team to fix.

Are we gonna make a no tp map pool for civs that pretty much auto lose vs good tp civs on tp maps?

I don't see why not. Currently I think there's a more urgent need for TP/competitive map pools but I don't see why we wouldn't make more pools. There is a general lack of map pools in the patch.

Are we gonna make a water map pool so water civs don't auto lose on land maps vs tp civs?

I hope there's no such thing as a "water civ that autoloses against land civs". Even so, yes, please. A water map pool would also be great.

A map pool should simply be balanced, that is, every civ excels on a certain map pool, and the maps should be equally available for all civs, in different combinations, so that every civ has about an equal chance to get a map that's favorable to them, unfavorable or neutral.

A map pool consisting of TP maps with average hunts shouldn't favour any civ. Non-TP civs have good options to mitigate the TP advantage on well-designed maps. And there are plenty of those.

I fail to see why a map like arkansas is more competitive than cascade range.

Again: for the same reason chess is more competitive than tic tac toe. More options.

All civs are playable on both maps, they simply require more creativity/adaptation from one civ than the other.

I beg to differ. Maybe we have different definitions of playable.

Exactly the fact that you are forced to adapt, forced to play to the map as well as the mu is what imo creates a higher level of competition than simply doing the same strat on autopilot no matter which map. Because in that case we can all just play on 1 map, and there is no need to create a different map pool.

Yes this is why map diversity is great and important in tournaments. But if, for example, I want to practice my Otto, I need a TP map pool because I'm never going to pick them on a non-TP map anyway. I could also be refining a certain build that only works on TP maps. Or I just want a game where the winner is not decided by whichever map came out of the dice roll.
Being forced to adapt to the map is great in theory, but in practice the game is often decided before it starts and that's bad for competition.

[deleted_user0]

It adds depth, but it also adds a balance issue.

Our aim is that civs who are strong on no-TP maps are still competitive on TP maps because they either have the option of booming hard themselves (e.g. Dutch), or have the option to take map control and deny the TP line (e.g. Russia).

On top of that, going for a tp is generally not a choice.

For many civs, but not all, the first TP is a no brainer especially if it's in base (which it isn't always). The second TP and beyond are absolutely a choice.

If it's there, then it's simply too good in 9 out of 10 cases to ignore it.

Taking a TP is not something you can always just do. It requires map control, which requires other sacrifices. So no, it's not better than the other options in 9 out of 10 cases.

Exactly because going for tp is so much superior over not going tp, is why we need no tp maps.

I never said we don't. I'm only arguing that they should be the standard.

I also think its bs to have a tp map pool... why should tp civs get such preferential treatment that we create a seperate map pool?

Because the civs are balanced around it. TP civs shouldn't have a strong advantage against non-TP civs on TP maps. If they do, we need to fix that.

Are we gonna make a no tp map pool for civs that pretty much auto lose vs good tp civs on tp maps?

I don't see why not. Currently I think there's a more urgent need for TP/competitive map pools but I don't see why we wouldn't make more pools. There is a general lack of map pools in the patch.

Are we gonna make a water map pool so water civs don't auto lose on land maps vs tp civs?

I hope there's no such thing as a "water civ that autoloses against land civs". Even so, yes, please. A water map pool would also be great.

A map pool should simply be balanced, that is, every civ excels on a certain map pool, and the maps should be equally available for all civs, in different combinations, so that every civ has about an equal chance to get a map that's favorable to them, unfavorable or neutral.

A map pool consisting of TP maps with average hunts shouldn't favour any civ. There's no coin flip where if you pick Otto and get no TPs you autolose, and even non-TP civs have good options to mitigate the TP advantage on well-designed maps. And there are plenty of those.

I fail to see why a map like arkansas is more competitive than cascade range.

Again: for the same reason chess is more competitive than tic tac toe. More options.

All civs are playable on both maps, they simply require more creativity/adaptation from one civ than the other.

I beg to differ. Maybe we have different definitions of playable.

Exactly the fact that you are forced to adapt, forced to play to the map as well as the mu is what imo creates a higher level of competition than simply doing the same strat on autopilot no matter which map. Because in that case we can all just play on 1 map, and there is no need to create a different map pool.

Yes this is why map diversity is great and important in tournaments. But if, for example, I want to practice my Otto, I need a TP map pool because I'm never going to pick them on a non-TP map anyway. I could also be refining a certain build that only works on TP maps. Or I just want a game where the winner is not decided by whichever map came out of the dice roll.
Being forced to adapt to the map is great in theory, but in practice the game is often decided before it starts and that's bad for competition.

you just said that taking a first tp, especially when its in base, is a no brainer, then you say it's still a choice because it requires sacrifices...

if tp would be a legit choice, let's say, choose between tp, a market and no market, then we would see people choose between tp, market and no market equally. But thing is, if you want more shipments because you want to ff, or want to do a timing, you go tp. If you want more eco, you don't go market, you go tp, and then you just still go market later because you have an extra shipment which you can put into res. If you want to rush fast, you still go tp, because its better to have an extra shipment than be up 15 seconds earlier, and have a wearker rush. So going tp is just a lot stronger than the alternative. You've already admitted this pretty much, so there's no reason why we should even debate it.

Tp civs do have that advantage, that's why they're generally strongest, and its why top players in their civs have found way to squeeze in tps even for civs that traditionally didn't go for tp because it was considered too difficult or not worth it. (aka you/diarouga/aizamk with brits, a few players with china, lordraph with dutch, spadel with japan, bsop with russia and aizamk/h2o with india)

This leads to the point where if the map pool would be just tp maps, we'd see the same style and the same bo repeated all the time. Not only within the civ, but basically between all civs as well. TP > no tp wouldnt be a problem if there were maps that would encourage different styles to be explored, which currently there are few maps that do so. It would be a shame if they were removed from the pool. And it would be an even bigger shame if the mappool would be flattened to cater only to that semi ff tp style. Being able to deal with unpredictable things and maps that require you to play a bit different is a good thing, not a bad thing. Obviously those maps still need to be designed properly. And low hunt shouldnt mean running out of hunt at 5 minutes or having your 2nd herd at half map. That's just poor mapmaking, and it's true that in the case of some maps, that might be what happened, but that's a different argument.

Well, we indeed have different interpretations of playable. You say no tp civs are playable on tp maps, while this isn't generally the case. But ofc no problem, but when a tp civ can't play on a no tp map (usually because they've never tried to find out how to play it) then it's a huge deal. Ppl who rely solely on tp civs and tp maps are quite lazy when it comes to finding alternative playstyles for a map, in my experience.

If you want to practice your otto for a tournament, you can just pick the map, you don't need a seperate pool for that. So that's really a strawman argument. Otto is even fine on no-tp water, so there's only a small portion of maps where otto would be sub par, and even there they have quite a few strategic options (or well they had, before their units were nerfed into shit). No tp means you can open market + church, which gets you your first shipment faster than on some tp maps. On some maps you age so fast that you can also play around with skipping the first shipment, something I have done a few times, for a fast ff or a fast rush. all things you learn to consider when you are forced to adapt. Necessity is the mother of creativity. In many ways, this patch kills off the creativity for at least one part of the game, if it would go the route you suggest (which it pretty much will cause youre in charge of it)

No one even uses qs on the patch, i wonder if there's ever even been 1 successful qs game, so I don't see the need for a pool. If you want to play on a certain type of map, you can simply pick a map. You already know what's gonna be in the pool anyway, so whether you pick them or have them randomly selected won't matter if the maps are all pretty much the same. I mean, sure you can go ahead and make pools, as long as you'd have one pool where all map types are present equally, i wouldnt give a shit. i would never play the other pools anyway.

[gamevideo113]

Me and @EAGLEMUT played one QS game on EP

[EAGLEMUT]

Actually, my currently last played 1v1 match was also on EP QS.

[Goodspeed]

you just said that taking a first tp, especially when its in base, is a no brainer, then you say it's still a choice because it requires sacrifices...

Sorry I thought it was clear: I said the first TP is often (still, definitely not always) a no brainer, the second and beyond are not.

Tp civs do have that advantage, that's why they're generally strongest,

None of the current top civs (except, arguably, India) are TP civs?

and its why top players in their civs have found way to squeeze in tps even for civs that traditionally didn't go for tp because it was considered too difficult or not worth it. (aka you/diarouga/aizamk with brits, a few players with china, lordraph with dutch, spadel with japan, bsop with russia and aizamk/h2o with india)

A point to illustrate that TPs are important for meta evolution. The fact that it was already worth it to build TPs with all of these civs (except maybe Japan) years ago, and it took players this long to finally start doing it, shows how TPs are one of the things that still allow for creativity and change in a 12.5 year old game.

This leads to the point where if the map pool would be just tp maps, we'd see the same style and the same bo repeated all the time. Not only within the civ, but basically between all civs as well.

I think that problem is overstated. On TP maps and non-TP maps alike we are seeing a lot of variety and overall great games recently. There is actually much less build order diversity on non-TP maps, due to the lack of options. But again, I am not arguing for removing non-TP maps, just for introducing a TP map pool.

TP > no tp wouldnt be a problem if there were maps that would encourage different styles to be explored, which currently there are few maps that do so. It would be a shame if they were removed from the pool.

Why do you keep saying "the" pool? Is it such a crime to have multiple map pools?

Well, we indeed have different interpretations of playable. You say no tp civs are playable on tp maps, while this isn't generally the case.

Can you name some examples? It's not supposed to be that way. We are balancing the civs so that all of them are competitive on standard TP maps.

But ofc no problem, but when a tp civ can't play on a no tp map (usually because they've never tried to find out how to play it) then it's a huge deal.

It's not a problem in tournaments but yeah it sucks when your game is decided by a roll of the dice.

Ppl who rely solely on tp civs and tp maps are quite lazy when it comes to finding alternative playstyles for a map, in my experience.

Because why would you? In a tournament, you can simply avoid picking that civ on such a map. It's, from a competitive viewpoint, a waste of time to find a way to play on non-TP maps as Otto. And if you want to play the civ on whatever map, you can still just pick the ESOC map pool. Again no one is forcing anyone to play on the pool, I just think it needs to be there for people who do want it.

If you want to practice your otto for a tournament, you can just pick the map

This is currently the only way to do it, yes. But what if I still want variety, just not so much variety that my civ autoloses? I don't understand why it is such a problem to include a standard (actual standard) map pool.

Necessity is the mother of creativity. In many ways, this patch kills off the creativity for at least one part of the game, if it would go the route you suggest (which it pretty much will cause youre in charge of it)

I think we've done very well encouraging creativity and diversity, tbh. Maybe that's bias talking, but I think the results speak for themselves. Competitive games have been very entertaining recently.

If you want to play on a certain type of map, you can simply pick a map.

Or, ideally, you would pick a type of map. Because you want to play on a type of map, not on a specific one. Seriously, what's the big deal?

Another way to put it is that, due to competitive play becoming more refined, we need a "standarder maps" pool. ES had the right idea making a distinction between All maps and Standard maps (where all maps include maps that are very influential towards the outcome of a game), and I think we now need a distinction between standard maps and "standarder" maps.

Anyway what is the most used map pool right now? Are people picking maps often?

[princeofcarthage]

If I were to say in terms of let's say a fps game like cs:go, having a gun with kill radius of 1000 which can one hit everyone, that would be unfair again not if both the players/teams have it. The problem is that both the people have same gun but are crying cuz they think they lost cuz they had purple skin and the opponent had red skin which in reality is just an aesthetic change.

[Garja]

I think you guys should really stop thinking about balance in static terms and embrace the concept of dynamic balance instead.
This game has 14 unique civs and plenty of maps with different features. For every civ or situation there will be some outliers and that is ok. There will always be a certain MU which is harder for a civ or a map that doesn't suit its design at all.
As long as things are kept within an acceptable range and they are roughly even for all civs then the balance is ok. So for example as long as every civ has roughly 10 fair MUs, 2 bad ones, and 2 easy ones that's balanced. Same thing goes for maps. You simply can't expect every civ/MU to be balanced on all conditions. That not only is unrealistic/impossible but not even desirable.

[Goodspeed]

I think with that approach, you invariably end up with civs that are too specialized. The more niche civs you will only see in specific situations doing 1 specific strategy.
I would rather have each civ be playable on the average and most common map type, and allow for outliers outside of that. There are, and will always be, outliers. That's not a problem and we don't see it as one. We aren't trying to balance every MU on every map, and are well aware this is impossible.

[Garja]

By configuring the average TP map as the standard one and by advancing proposals such as fixed crates you are indeed seeking for static balance.
Dynamic balance is needed in games which have random elements.

I fail to see the connection between dynamic balance, specialized civs and lack of strat variety. I would in fact argue it is more the opposite, if anything. The same civilization played on different maps requires different approaches. For example, Iroquois on a TP map will grab TPs. On a non TP map will seek for other options, actually emplying its unique feature, the travois, otherwise relegated to the mere role of a longhouse.

[Goodspeed]

By configuring the average TP map as the standard one and by advancing proposals such as fixed crates you are indeed seeking for static balance.
Dynamic balance is needed in games which have random elements.

If I understand correctly what you mean by "static balance", we are not at all seeking it. After all it's impossible to achieve for a game like AoE3.

I fail to see the connection between dynamic balance, specialized civs and lack of strat variety. I would in fact argue it is more the opposite, if anything. The same civilization played on different maps requires different approaches. For example, Iroquois on a TP map will grab TPs. On a non TP map will seek for other options, actually emplying its unique feature, the travois, otherwise relegated to the mere role of a longhouse.

Compare differences in map with differences in game mode. If you don't balance the game from 1 standard (we chose 1v1 supremacy) you will never achieve balance because the game modes are too different. The only way to then achieve balance is to standardize every civ, or accept that most of them are unplayable in every one game mode. What you then end up with is civs that are highly specialized towards the one or two game modes that they are good at.

By your definition of dynamic balance, in the context of game modes, we would ignore that Japan is unplayable in Deathmatch and that Ports are unplayable in supremacy. That's okay, because they are good at other things. As a result, Ports would never be played in sup and Japan never played in DM.

The same would happen if you allow civs to be bad on TP maps because, similar to different game modes, the balance on a non-TP map is just too different from the balance on a TP map. Another similarity is the difference between team and 1v1. You can never balance both: you have to choose one that takes priority while doing what you can about the other. If there is no unifying standard, every civ becomes too specialized. On top of losing civ diversity on most types of maps, it's impossible to achieve any kind of balance that way.

So while we do what we can to balance the outliers, they remain outliers.

[Garja]

Your reasoning is flawed in the fact that game modes such as supremacy and DM are extremely different while maps and 1v1-vs-team are not. It is very much possible to achieve satisfactory balance with all maps and it is indeed possible to balance 1v1 and team together since changes move in the same direction for both game modes.
TP and non TP balance is only majorly impactful for a handful of civs and not even for all their MUs or necessarily for all the maps of one subset. A concrete example is Germans-Brits where Germans do get some compensation for the lack of TP on maps like Bengal or Cascade Range via map control.
I think the main mistake here is to consider TP and non TP balance separately when in fact they equally contribute to the overall civ balance. Any attempt to estimate a civ win rate must consider all maps and their features (not just TPs). Conceived this way, civ win rates are more similar to a distribution of win rates, depending on the various conditions. A certain MU can't be reduced to a simple win rate. If anything it has a win rate for each map and then, if you want to approximate, those win rates have to be weighted together.
Besides balance isn't even a matter of pure win rate. I don't think win rate is the only criterium to follow to balance the game. A civ might have some very easy MUs despite its overall win rate. Those super easy MUs have to be factored in as an extra bonus of the civ. Some civs are objectively harder to play than others and that has to be factored in as well, allowing those civs to perform above the average to some extent.


More importantly tho, I still see no correlation between difference in balance and specialization. I mean, I can try to interpret it as having only one competitive strategy choice on a certain difficult map (e.g. Germans rely on being aggressive without the TP option) but I think that's arguable in the first place and, even if the case, not necessarily a problem. Afterall conceiving something as standard implies it is the most competitive way to play a certain MUs, still making the civ specialized by your reasoning. German TP semi FF is very much as specialized as German tower rush, except that with 2 different maps you have both options.
It is simply irrefutable that diverse maps bring diverse strats and situations.

[zoom]

well then thats why ep is silly. theres no reason why tp maps should be standard anyway. different maps require different meta, but there's no reason why one is more or less competitive than the other.

No high hunt high tp maps are objectively better! zoi told me so

First Garja, now this. The baiting and lies going on in this thread!

As far as map-pools go, they should reflect a single thing: Demand. Current map-pools do so poorly. Consistent map-pools (where the map-type is largely known beforehand) do not, and definitely should, exist, just as inconsistent ones do and should exist.